D&D 5E Do DM's feel that Sharpshooter & Great Weapon Master overpowered?

[The Crimson Binome]

So unless you alter the entire system, it's fine?

Changing the AC value of a single monster hardly constitutes an alteration to the entire system, no matter how many times you repeat the operation.

A character with access to Feats is significantly more powerful than a character without access to Feats, especially if that character is an archer or great-weapon fighter. If you choose to invoke the wholly-optional sub-system that allows for such things, then you may need to compensate with stronger monsters. Allowing a character to take these feats, in a world full of chump monsters with lousy AC, is no different than allowing a character to acquire a flametongue in a world full of ice monsters with vulnerability to fire.

 

[Shiroiken]

I do not feel that they're OP. I think they are the standard when designing Feats. They give you new options unavailable normally, and balance moderately well against +2 to your primary ability. I feel the problem is less that they're OP, than many other Feats are UP (*cough* *cough* weaponmaster *cough*).

As for the choice of mechanics (-5/+10), they had some options, but those options also had downsides. If they chose to use Disadvantage instead of -5 Attack, then it would be super great anytime you already had Disadvantage (Disadvantage stacking was discussed quite bit during the playtest, because Intoxicated gave disadvantage to attacks for a form of damage reduction). They could have given rolled dice for the benefit (say 3d6), but then you have more dice rolled (which some claim slow the game down) and it technically would be re-rollable with GWF by RAW (yes, I know Sage Advice stated that wasn't the intent, but some groups like RAW and others don't ever see Sage Advice).

 

[BookBarbarian]

In a game where characters can gain access to reality altering spells I don't think -5/+10 feats are overpowered. And while they are powerful, I actually think Polearm Master and Crossbow Expert are more powerful and combining GWM with PM and SS with CE is where you might have a character that makes other non-casters feel inferior.

For me it boils down to, I think these 2 pairs of feats synergize in a way that outdistances other non-polearm or non-crossbow styles of fighting and that does bother me but I don't think that makes them overpowered, just great options to do damage.

Ultimately I would like to have other feats that offer bonus action options with other weapons.

 

[CapnZapp]

text

What do you mean by "overpowered"?

Too good compared to other options/feats?

Unbalancing the game?

I would answer yes to the first part but no to the second.

---

Dealing damage is in itself not a particularly gamewrecking ability. There are always more and bigger monsters.

Dealing much more damage than your friends, however, that is a serious issue. And yes, GWM and SS give too much of an damage boost since it comparatively easy to mitigate the to-hit penalties. It makes it too hard to not choose them if you're a weapon user.

SS is actually more harmful than GWM, since SS removes too many limitations of ranged combat (and Crossbow Expert removes the remaining ones). GWM at least requires you to enter melee with the beasties, which is good, since many Monster Manual entries are not given any defenses against kiting tactics.

 

[CapnZapp]

The actual effects of the -5/+10 also need to be held in clear perception: -5 to hit is a big difference in accuracy. Choosing to have that penalty will cause some attacks to miss. Those misses mean that the average damage added by the feat is actually not the +10 listed, but some smaller number. As a result, the practical effect of the feat is actually very situational - by which I mean it should only be used in particular situations or it will appear to the player using it to be reducing overall damage output thanks to missed attacks.

The folks that I've seen make a case for the feat being broken have only demonstrated that they choose not to run their games outside the limited circumstances when these feats are at their best performance.

This ignores how relatively easy it is to minmax away that -5 to accuracy...

As I just said, you need to define "broken" (what you think those people mean by "broken").

If everybody is okay with the idea that in a combat heavy campaign, you pick a -5+10 feat if you are a weaponuser and that's that... then there is nothing particularly game-disruptive about these feats. After all, it's just damage.

But if you hoped 5E would support many different fighting styles, where your choice of two weapons, single weapon, sword'n'board, reach weapon, greatweapon etc etc would be mostly a matter of style and color.... you would be sorely disappointed, because the -5+10 feats make some characters a little too effective compared to the others... I mean, if you decide to pick up a weapon, your main job is to kill baddies, and you do that job a little too well with those feats compared to other choices.

I voted not broken, but too good compared to the alternatives.

 

[werecorpse]

Yes I think they are too overpowered partly because the AC of many enemies is low and it is relatively easy to gain a few bonuses to hit (advantage/bless etc) so the -5 penalty is able to be easily mitigated.

 

[bmfrosty]

I know a player in Adventurers League that invariably creates a minmaxxed variant human fighter that has sharpshooter and crossbow expert by 4th level. I am annoyed by the imbalance that it brings to the game so much that I avoid playing with him.

If I were running a table that wasn't Adventurers League, I would outlaw gwm, sharpshooter, variant humans, and point buy (opting for standard array) just because of my experiences with this guy.

 

[CapnZapp]

Second, the optionality of the rules. Something being presented as opt-in (you must specifically choose to use it), rather than opt-out (that's the rule, but you can elect to change the rules), makes it more acceptable to be presenting options that might perform better in one campaign than in another, because the intent is that only those campaigns that are improved (from the participants' view) by including an option will choose to include that option.

So that a combat-heavy campaign makes that -5/+10 look very appealing is the design working as intended, not something being "broken."

To me that's backwards thinking.

You don't include feats into a combat-heavy campaign because you want everybody to take those -5+10 feats.

If you include feats, no matter what focus it has, you do so because you hope that opt-in feature increases choice and variation, yes?

Well, if you agree to that I gotta say those feats mean design not working as intended, because in a combat-heavy campaign those feats are too good compared to the alternatives (other feats, no feats).

Actually, when I think about it, I have a hard time coming up with any style of campaign improved by opting for feats with your criteria in mind.

That is because I do not consider a campaign to be "improved" by adding a set of options where there are a very small subset which is clearly Best in Class for your style of campaign.

In contrast, my ideal opt-in rules module such as feats, would include half a dozen equally attractive feats for the combat pillar, half a dozen equally attractive feats for the explore pillar, and half a dozen equally attractive feats for the social pillar.

By your definition of design as intended, Aaron, I would say there ARE several feats working well, but that the -5+10 feats are not among them.

 

[CapnZapp]

Unfortunately, the number of feats overall not-working-well is too great. A small number seems unfinished.

Some feats are simply weak no matter how you look at it. Some feats clearly belong to a pillar, but are way too niche.

Too many feats belong to the "mechanical pillar". Feats like Weapon Master or Medium Armor are only there to shore up missing links in how classes interact.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

This ignores how relatively easy it is to minmax away that -5 to accuracy...

That's actually what I was talking about when I mentioned keeping perception clear as to what is going on - because there is no way to "minmax away that -5 to accuracy". There is always that penalty regardless of what other factors are involved, even when those factors result in situations where taking the penalty to hit is appealing becoming more common, that's not a quality inherent to the feat itself, and it is not actually making the accuracy penalty go away.

But if you hoped 5E would support many different fighting styles, where your choice of two weapons, single weapon, sword'n'board, reach weapon, greatweapon etc etc would be mostly a matter of style and color.... you would be sorely disappointed

You're overstating. My group hoped 5e would support many different fighting styles, and we aren't disappointed in the slightest by it doing just that.

...because the -5+10 feats make some characters a little too effective compared to the others...

Not in my experience.

To me that's backwards thinking.

Yeah, but I'm pretty sure you and I are, collectively, a single coin, if you catch my meaning.

Some feats are simply weak no matter how you look at it.

Again, you are overstating. Those feats work just fine in the type of campaigns they are intended to be used in - that type of campaign not being the type you usually play or think of when considering if these feats are functional doesn't mean there aren't any other ways to look at them.